Creative Genius 'At Work'-
Depth Psychology Meets Digital Faction/Art, or... to put it another way, 2D or Not 2 D?... Sorry, what was the question?. Dissertation - does that mean Prof of the Pudding?
Or another...
Do you know what I know or am I the only one who knows what I know I know?
The Fairly Good Mother was on the phone and being invited to demonstrate certain talents for the benefit of a few. She listened carefully as the prospective show was detailed, and for clarity, she transcribed (paraphrased if you will) because sometimes she seems a bit deaf. Now, obviously, we're only able to hear one side of this argument conversation..... but this is how it went,
"So what you're saying is..... that you can't actually prove you're right, so you want me to....what, again?"
"Oh, you want me to collude in order to produce evidence... am I right?"
"Ah, it's about the science of equality. Oh I see how I was confused."
"And you're saying You'll set the rules...... and provided I agree, I get the chance to demonstrate or I've failed, yeah? .... and in that case someone's ...er a big fibber?"
I've been enjoying a variety of science theory and fact based documentaries/lectures on television over the last few weeks. Though one reoccurring aspect has, I found, distracted and detracted from that.
Now while I appreciate that there are probably going to be various moments when others won't agree with me - having a different belief system - I also don't expect insult, or at best, discriminatory/inflammatory comment direct from institutions or others publicly associated with higher education, with all due respect.
I don't like feeling, nor do I expect does anyone else, that my views aren't being adequately expressed or that there's a particularly aggressive negative one being prejudicially pedalled and persuasively portrayed at my expense. Especially when it's communicated through a public medium (television) and from a stand view of (more or less) higher intellect.
Perhaps it's only my view that it appears that if one believes in anything of a spiritual nature you're openly mocked, ridiculed and/or otherwise stygmatised as fair game for attack by the instruments of the media and that this at least encourages political dismissal. In effect, by virtue of pedestalled accept, and as thus placed in front of any class of camera, the speaker can appear above the law by dispensing their own perspective as fact by actively demoting another to - that held only by idiots, fools or otherwise (to keep it simple) the stupid.
Point in principle, if there's no need to mention then the implication by the choice to make reference is that a potential discrimination is inherent. To whit:-
To "Woo Woo" - used in description and explained by Brian Cox (of whom, I'm otherwise a fan of).
The BBC's Christmas Lectures (2011), when Professor Bruce Hood mentions mind reading as some belief considered possible only by the deluded.
In particular: -
Definition
Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his 1913 bookGeneral Psychopathology.[2] These criteria are:
certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)[3]
Furthermore, when a false belief involves a value judgment,it is only considered as a delusion if it is so extreme that it cannot be or ever can be proven true (example: a man claims that he flew into the sun and flew back home. This would be considered a delusion). [4]
Now in my humble opinion that description seems more accurately applied to those that decry the ability or potential in terms already outlined.
So, anyway......
A few quotes....
"Guidance on new measures to outlaw discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities and services
(Part 2, Equality Act 2006)
"Foreword
We are delighted to introduce this guidance on new measures outlawing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities and services, education, the use and disposal of premises and the exercise of public functions.
Modern British society is founded on the principles on which this legislation is based: fairness, tolerance, decency and respect. These are the principles that have seen this Government take great strides towards a more equal society over the last decade, not least through similar legislation outlawing discrimination on these grounds in employment.
The new protections are mutually supportive. While the case for new legislation in both areas was widely accepted, there was concern that in safeguarding the rights of one group, the sometimes competing rights of another may be infringed. The Government recognised the sensitivity of these issues, which go to the very heart of our society. These measures we have brought forward protect the rights of individuals and organisations to hold religious beliefs while also ensuring that everyone lives a life free from harmful discrimination. "
"This document sets out guidance on Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006, and its implications for organisations within the private, public and voluntary sectors. The religion or belief provisions of Part 2 prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion or belief (or lack of religion or belief) in the provision of goods, facilities and services, in education, in the use and disposal of premises, and in the exercise of public functions. They provide protection from religion or belief discrimination that is on a par with the protection already provided on grounds of race and sex, as well as new measures prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The religion or belief provisions of Part 2 do not deal with employment.1 Nor do they make specific provision to cover harassment2"
. "Commencement
The religion or belief provisions of Part 2 of the Act came into effect on 30th April 2007.3"
"1Discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in employment and vocational training has been unlawful since December 2003 under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The Act however does make one minor change to the definitions of religion or belief and of direct discrimination in the 2003 Regulations. 2 Specific consideration is to be given through the Discrimination Law Review to the subject of harassment on the grounds of religion or belief outside the employment context (harassment in the workplace is covered by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003). 3The Act and its Explanatory Notes, can be found athttp://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006.htm 4 Further information about the CommissionFor Equality and Human Rights can be obtained on their website, at http://www.cehr.org.uk/."
"Making claims
Complaints may be made to the courts under Part 2 by individuals who believe that they have been discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief. This process is explained in more detail in the section below on ‘making a claim’, including advice on what to do if you feel that you have been discriminated against."
"Further information on the Equality Act in general, or on this guidance (but not on individual claims) can be obtained from the Department for Communities and Local Government at EqualityActEnquiries@communities.gsi.gov.uk
(please head your enquiry “Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006”)"
"Part 2 also outlaws discrimination on grounds of lack of religion or belief. It will therefore be unlawful to discriminate against someone on the grounds, for example, that they do not belong to a particular religion (or any religion at all), or that they do not adhere to a particular belief, such as Humanism."
Incidentally,
Regarding questions of legitimacy, may I point out, (if anyone's prepared to be childish), I was first to say "You started it" and, before anyone says "My Dad's Bigger", are we talking about "Our Father" ?
A few more quotes:-
Instructing or causing discrimination
The religion or belief provisions of Part 2 make it unlawful for a person to instruct, or cause, another person to discriminate in a way which is unlawful under Part 2. Only the Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be entitled to bring proceedings in respect of a contravention which, once it is fully operational, it may do using its powers set out in section 25 of the Act.
Aiding unlawful acts
It is unlawful knowingly to help another person to do anything which is unlawful under the religion or belief provisions of Part 2.
Territorial application The religion or belief provisions of Part 2 apply to anything done in Great Britain5; and to the provision of facilities for travel on, and benefits, facilities or services provided on, a British aircraft, ship or hovercraft. Goods, facilities and services where individuals or organisations enter the public realm to provide a service to the public at large, they should accept business from people of all walks of life and provide services to the public as it is constituted – not pick and choose who will benefit or be served.
The provisions of Part 2 of the Equality Act require providers of goods, facilities and services to ensure that they are not treating their customers unfairly on the grounds of religion or belief, just as they are already required not to treat their employees unfairly on these grounds.6
Unlawful treatment of customers on the grounds of religion or belief includes:
Providing goods facilities or services in a less favourable manner or on less favourable terms than would normally be the case (eg in a hostile or less courteous way).
The religion or belief provisions of Part 2 apply to all forms of goods, facilities and services. The Act gives as examples the following goods, facilities and services in the provision of which discrimination on grounds of religion or belief would be unlawful:
– Access to and use of a place that the public is permitted to enter;
– Accommodation in establishments such as hotels and boarding houses;
– Facilities for banking/insurance, or for grants, loans, credit or finance; – Facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment;
– Facilities for transport or travel;
– Professional or trade services.
This list is illustrative, not exhaustive.
Discrimination is unlawful whether or not a charge is made for the goods, facilities or services concerned.
Actions instigated by the Commission For Equality and Human Rights
The Commission for Equality and Human Rights will be responsible for enforcement of the discriminatory advertising and discriminatory practice provisions of Part 2. The only criminal offences created by the Regulations relate to the making of false statements that acts or advertisements are not discriminatory.
Among other things the Commission may:
• conduct an investigation where it suspects that a person or organisation may have contravened these Regulations;
• apply to a court for an injunction (in England and Wales) or an interdict (in Scotland) where it suspects that a person or organisation will, unless stopped, commit an act of unlawful discrimination under these Regulations.
Guidance on new measures to outlaw discrimination on grounds of religion or belief in provision of goods, facilities and services (Part 2, Equality Act 2006)1
In order to continue and start to review we must in part disregard what we immediately associate with witches, either from antiquity or courtesy of Walt Disney or any other descriptive fictional gimmickry. Let's instead consider the basic concept without the fancy dresses, big hats, cauldron props, pets or other equipment - simply because - well.....anyone could have them.
What makes witches 'different' are a range of 'so-called' abilities that seem amazingly strange, comparatively within modern or ancient precepts, transcending or accompanying human history, as they still exist. Now of course there maybe 'the force' within you, or perhaps you're just one of a few who'd like it to be true of them. The latter may account for the interest but it doesn't preclude abilities that maybe inherent. However, to assist I've compiled a check list, for ease of reference and keep in mind that honesty is integral.
Divination:- Whilst enjoying a variety of connotations is, as a skill, I predict perhaps the most difficult to evidence credibly. Current and standard rules, to eliminate fools and/or charlatans, demand that the intrinsic characteristic equates with no prior knowledge or logic application.
(i.e. - accurate speculative guessing is disallowed - rule c).
However, if you're capable, you should consider all the most relative implications in advance - because - you can plan.
So, how does it happen?
Well, it may occur in a variety of ways. Dream statements are relevant. Though the unconscious mind filters through time and assists appreciation or consolidation of past events, there are times when it's freedom to climb through the veils of space allow it to provide something entirely alternative.
Dreams are generally readily forgotten as we awaken, though some maybe highly emotive and/or puzzling and consequently we'll spend more time considering them. There are some which are at odds with the circumstances we're familiar with, which by their rules ascribe the term 'impossible', yet we're convinced of the opposite by the quality of the dream itself.
Imagination, at this point, maybe used to accuse rather than providing the point through which the potential proffered is opened to critical examination, as it should - to prevent misapplication of understanding or relevance of any future event. In other words, it maybe used to question not predict. (see rule c)
Necromancy:- Historically associated with witches and more currently with modern day Psychics, Mediums and such.
(see rule c)
An antique term used to refer specifically to raising the dead - also a skill associated with one particularly influential entity.
Having said that, there are other worldly, or differing dimensions that are interwoven and naturally occurring. Speculation has links within apparitional experiences, if only by description. As I understand things there's more haunting evidence of living beings than those 'departed' (as such).
Whilst fascinated by the abilities demonstrated on stage and television by those called Psychic, personally I've never found it appealing to demand the attention of those who have already quit our reference of reality. Though I've certainly witnessed some occasions involving some other alternative.
I think it's important, if you're hoping for this experience, that you're at least prepared for something unexpected. If, in fact, it's more like you expect, there's probably a genuine sobering cause that could in effect discount it under description. Plus psychologists would intervene as they work primarily within a frame of doubt, in so far as they don't count any experience considered unusual as 'normal' and in this respect, explanations are based on a pre-set agenda i.e: a primary underlying motive (which includes the need to be accepted by their peer group).
Casting: - Usually a reference to spelling, which is also associated with scripture, prediction, pictures, chanting, and story telling ... far too obvious I think to require detailed explanation here.
(rule c waived)
So what other 'abilities' are associated with witchery?
Well, we must remember that not all witches may be blessed with the full list, I'm not going to speculate as to why now, though (obviously) I have my own opinions on this.
Should we ascribe any other extraordinary ability to witches?
Possibly.
For the sake of consideration at least, let's list what they may be, but remember that these maybe included above and that psychologists value the ability to discard preconceived prejudice and how to note it's inclusion or allusion in order to eradicate - not compensate....
Barbara quickly learnt at school that she was different, possibly not in good ways. For a start she didn't seek refuge in groups who agreed, and she often felt what the teachers said wasn't entirely accurate. Perhaps it was because she asked so many questions that she was considered impertinent.
Whilst being taught to be honest and well behaved, she experienced moments were she appeared to be undermined and, dismayed, this led to evenings (sometimes obliquely) enquiring about her day.
Her peers on the other hand appeared to be much more receptive and confident, maybe these elements empowered them when elected to select their team-mates during physical education events. During these sporting activities she spent time observing the reasons for success, though this didn't always apparently necessitate the innate talents you might expect as a spectator.
So whilst a young child she concluded, the purpose of rules wasn't to encourage a few to break them, the prerequisite was possibly, though obscure, to ensure lack of evidence reasonable doubt.
Consequently she was a consistently obstinate and reluctant participant of each P.E affray. You see, Barbara thought that the whole concept of sport was to demonstrate how effective success was at producing what you might call failure.
If that wasn't enough, she was also recalcitrant. Most notably during any religious instruction. Regardless of what she was taught she persisted with her own thoughts and researched the subject from various and alternative perspectives.
Still, the general description revealed in reports that Barbara was considered a very polite, quiet and bright student - particularly in the areas of English, Maths, Art and Science.
Now while the Mother recovered in hospital, the father (as was usual) was responsible for ensuring the child was christened and registered within all appropriate officialdom. Names were discussed and dismissed, 'Rose' was one, and Margaret too. At last they agreed and called her Barbara because it was a little unusual and yet still traditional, albeit repetitive in syllables.
All through her childhood she was frequently told (with emphasis), "Your name is Bar-ba-ra," and "not Babs, Barb, or Barbie!," and spent an inordinate amount of her time dealing with this prickly problem, attempting to persuade all friends, relatives, strangers and acquaintances to comply with the explicit wishes of her Mother.
She often thought life would have been so much easier if only she'd simply been called Rose.
With a much older sister and a slightly younger brother, she nearly always had company. Problem was, as is generally the sibling case, they often disagreed. Still, her childhood was filled with exploration, from the way that grass grows, to the advances of science as the tales of Apollo were to unfold.
Born on a Thursday evening in October 1963, the Fairly Good Mother was to be the middle child of a seamstress and her merchant seaman husband. The family resided in the cultural cauldron city of Liverpool (by the sea). There were difficulties during the labour and (unusually for that time) the mother demanded a Cesarean section.
As she wailed to all midwives and sundry, "I've waited 7 years for this child!," and recounted her recent history which included a miscarriage during the early weeks of a previous pregnancy, so the reluctant obstetricians complied. Almost immediately after the birth, while the mother and new addition to his family safely lay sleeping, the father relieved and elated (and as tradition dictates), had spent quality time with his peers in a pub of close proximity to the maternity unit while he celebrated.
After a short time with the baby the mother had rested. In those days it was customary for all babies to be transferred to a unit for newborns to be attended, so allowing the mothers to recover without further disturbance. However, when the mother awoke the next day and requested her baby, the child brought to her she claimed was not hers and that clearly (it incensed her - she complained) some mistake had been made. A short investigation identified the mix-up, as another mother had given birth at approximately the same time. It appeared these two children of intervention had been misplaced in their respective cradles, so at last the mother was reconciled with her child.
Some years later the young child, when hearing this story, herself asked how her mother had recognised her, who'd explained, "Oh... you were Much prettier!"
.....Was, as we know, a witch although she wasn't green and didn't have a big nose - that isn't to say she wasn't considered a bit alien (different) and/or curious.
She often asked questions. Most of them sounded simple enough,
"What?" because she sometimes seemed a bit deaf. Now you might think that anyone who's not sure what you meant is a bit simple, but the fact of the matter is that they maybe rapidly processing and happily pretending in order to assist clarification.
Which may mean they're actually incredibly intelligent, but don't want you to be upset by it.
Also, if you were able to hear what people were thinking, would you know the difference? I mean, if it sounded just like they were speaking, but it was their thoughts you heard, would you know? And if you did, how would you react? People don't expect their thoughts to be heard, actually, it's not often that thoughts are worth listening to, but if you could hear them, sometimes distinctly.... you're not expected to react to them.... at all. So if it happens to you, look confused and ask, "What?" as if you're not really interested.
Psychiatrists, for example, think that it's fair to ask their patients "Do you hear 'voices' ?,".. like voices don't exist. When what they're really asking them is, "Will you admit to hearing something that everyone else thinks is impossible?" or if they can hear something that they're not supposed to. In other words, "Are you mad?".
"It's a good job so many people are patient," the Fairly Good Mother thought. So the problem is (as a witch) you're not supposed to notice that witches actually exist, and if you listen to psychiatrists (apparently) you're mad.... unless you have special effects and somehow belong in Hollywood, or ....in other words - you've got to be pretending and you're most probably bad.
So anyway, our Fairly Good Mother considered all of this in respect to a couple of her gifts but reminded herself, because she was fairly savvy, that some were very exclusive in many respects.
(She knew little bits about a lot - she thought learning was very important)
If you could hear hundreds of thousands of cries saying, "I need Help!" would you pretend not to hear it, could you deny it? Anyway, what could you do about it? Who could you tell, or would you think you must be imagining it?
The Fairly Good Mother stood at her door looking over the garden as she considered this. Just as she was about to go back inside, a couple of birds twittered "You must be joking," as they flew by. The Fairly Good Mother smiled, she thought that was funny. As she closed the door one of them said, "Did She hear me?".
Not very long ago, just recently in fact, a Fairly Good Mother sat and thought about how she could make things a bit happier, not just for her kids, but for herself too. In fact, quite possibly for the first time in many years, she was thinking a lot about other children's dreams. After-all, her own children were practically grown up now (although she still wasn't convinced that 'grown-ups' really existed as fact at all).
First of all she considered all the obstacles that she had to overcome, there were quite a few!
The first thing she considered was, "Do I need to limit my use of 'fact's", she was a very practical woman with a weird sense of humour. For example, a few years ago she'd persuaded her youngest son (who was about 12 years old at the time) to announce loudly and in public - frequently - and 'on cue', that she was, "..the Best Mum in the World!".
She'd never told him that she'd been planning to buy him that particular games console before he'd asked, but she'd figured it would be fun and a good lesson (as a reminder) to get him to agree to that condition before she bought it for him.
Now this Fairly Good Mother was both gifted and cursed. Most Mum's are but in a few ways she was different from other Mum's. Oh she still had lots of plates to wash and loads of ironing. Her children didn't tidy up much and she hated having to tell them. No magic wand (apparently) could resolve those particular problems.
This Fairly Good Mother also happened to be a Witch, which was supposed to be the good part, but listen to this..... the curse was...... no one believed her!
Apparently, according to everyone else, witches only exist in fairy stories and 'the movies' in the 21st Century. In many respects this wasn't a bad thing for the Fairly Good Mother, it meant that people weren't scared of her and generally considered her behaviour to be traditionally English (that is to say, eccentric, or - in words that we can both understand - a bit daft).
That isn't to say it wasn't a problem. Witches in movies and fairy stories get to be respected, for a start. They also have special effects which are conspicuously absent in real life. Plus, in movies and fairy stories there's generally a happy ending. The Fairly Good Mother was seriously considering this.
The problem was, she decided, in being a witch you can't dictate, even if you're in some ways able to predict, there are rules that state you can't influence the outcome if it's in any way disadvantageous. That's a rule, no witch can break.
However, and fortunately, she didn't have a huge nose and her skin wasn't green. Although she did have a few warts, you'd never notice them. She also wasn't mean, possibly it was a problem, but her flaw was generosity.
Oh and she liked to bake.
Actually, she baked really rather excellent birthday cakes too, but that's incidental.
here's a consensus or over-riding perspective (it seems to me)
How to view global warming, and those without the group - who disagree.
Each view allocated value, those who accept the explanation and the 'minority'
Qualifying scientific evaluation of the situation isn't generally questioned,
Unless there's apparent dismissal or dispute in regards to the evidence
In amongst the world of scientists, the facts are all too plainly obvious
Conspiracy, or alternative theory in this respect (at best) is disconnectedness
Knowledge and understanding of the primary matter is essential for this
By comparing depth, distance and longevity of frozen material it seems
Records irreconcilable difference in proximity or extreme
Outlines from space can be seen, these demonstrate effectively
What amount of loss and rate there has exponentially been
News broadcast globally, of what consumerist traits in planetary terms mean
Few without contemporary peer group support
Orate speculatively in amidst the dark of rhetorical retort
X Mark's the Spot, but of what and who'd have thought anyway
Jumping from one gas to another here
Underlying usage of fossil fuels interact with impact our atmosphere
Matters of political diplomacy venture to eradicate this wholesale expenditure
"Please stop it", Governments say
So we listen, but continue - is there a sustainable alternative way?
Ozone depleted and increasingly disrupted
Voracious undermining and increasingly violet death rays
Earth's human stewardship displays
Resolute greed and indiscriminate plays
The rapid expansion of population increases heat
How that affects global warming is additional purely
Each individual requires resource and we appreciate defeat surely
Leaders note with greater dismay
An emergent diplomatic dilemma, however
Zealots of finance preconceive an ideal and methodical way
"You could prevent the explosion of populace and address global warming within a material frame"
Dodgy fiscal speculation and borrowing too
Over expended financially stretched the population naturally decreases
Global economies pitch, as determined by the hierarchical few
In the near or distant (relative) past where wolves dared to tread in closer proximity .... I forget if it was Nobody or No-one who answered a question, which was quite funny.......
Recently discussing with a leading senior psychologist, the appointment made (of a senior administrator) within their department, they said,
"The fact that we already have someone temporary covering it, made no difference at all - to the candidate(s)"
I asked what criteria had helped the decision being met, to which they said,
"Well the successful candidate was very specific".
"In what way?" I asked
"They explained in greater detail how they'd do stuff" the Snr. psychologist extolled.
"What did they say that was so different?" intrigued further (I suspect), to which the psychologist said,
"Well when asked how would you do 'something' they'd explained, "First, I'd go into work, then I'd take off my coat and then I'd sit at my desk, then...."
After listening to the long list of strategically important stuff, I asked,
"What were the worst things about any alternative choice.... other than that?"
Professionally they explained to me, "Welllllll, one had improved a letter, after reading suggestions they could make inclusions and/or alterations to it, so obviously they'd disregarded the instructions we left. Though their version was enhanced without being extended as such, that's not what we'd expect".
"Oh" I said, then asked, "What else?"
"One had a wealth of experience, but that had made no significant difference", he paused briefly then continued, "after some discussion about the job, they'd admitted that they had no direct background or previous experience in our department".
"Was that a significant factor?" I quizzed
"Well as they'd admitted this during the interview, yes."
"Oh right, so they'd been honest about this?"
"Worse because, they'd mentioned an area we don't cover"
"Ah, you believe they'd 'guessed'?"
"Yes, clearly no research had been done, which we felt should have"
"Couldn't be bothered hey?!"
"Apparently. Obviously we considered this negatively, despite their obvious enthusiasm to learn in situ or their background of experience in various other and associated departments along with any previous history of working within similar partnerships."
"Tut"
"Whereas the successful candidate had expressed a genuine and much more recent breadth and depth of pertinent knowledge to a far greater extent. Naturally we were impressed by this. Plus, one of them didn't even have a professional qualification in typing"
"Why did you shortlist them if they couldn't type?"
"Well they 'claimed' to be capable of a very high rate and accuracy, but at the interview I explained that doesn't provide evidence of continued professional development - if I disregard their employment history."
"Ah right....... So did you employ the candidate already in post?"
"Oh I couldn't discuss that with you, let's just say I found sufficient fault with the alternatives (though it may sound like nit-picking - it all added up) to justify dismissing their potential appointment."
"Ah right, did finance come into consideration?"
"What? Oh, well the candidate employed will commence at the basic, though the money is available regardless of previous progression."
"Yes, but as a professional I follow strict codes of ethics and protocol principles."
"Would it have made any difference if you'd known one of the candidates had an auditory processing disorder? Are you familiar with that at all?"
"Er, well.... um...., I do know what the words mean - though not put together like that, no.
However there's a range of considerations - if that is a disability - to be taken into consideration, though I don't know if that's regarded as a disability, there are areas of the application form that oblige people with disabilities to declare them................."
Dull dark grey paving appears underfoot and in front I see
Stretching ahead directly,
Eyes lifting, I note (peripherally) sparsely intermittent barren trees swaying
And a new view as the path merges suddenly
interrupted by..
Strangely familiar
in oils, 16 x 20 inches
Brick
Contrasting starkly against the edge of now and the reason to be
Shallow (commercially suggestive) sprawling brown contained building
Which rises in the near distance conspicuously
Marking the future, that's somehow scheduled and beckoning me
The single storey
Building roof-line peaks and troughs as it breaks out jaggedly
Against a bleak moody sky
Eyes sweep across the horizon marking
Dark moderate undulating fields stretch out be sides
Measuring the distance between it and the low irregular railings surrounding
That can't pretend to keep out.
Stark towering flat blocks upon which windows form regular pocks
Circling around either side ominously
The breeze worries about and we hasten our steps inwards
Entering into a series of pent artificially bright corridors
Flanked by glass compartments of various size, blinking their wares in display
Streams of people encompass all sides
Unyielding flows this way
and that
Chatter and clatter rising, repeated comments splash from tv or crash out of somewhere or other,
"Yes t'day" an echoing tinkles as it waves through the air.
Stuttering paces through the herding crowd
I ask, "Do you know why we are we here?",
(Wondering which one of us is in tow).
Looking for some clue that could be on show
In amidst the throng someone collides and pushes past me
Time hangs in the air, like slowwwwed mo... ti... on....
While poised...
I watch someone's back as they move along hurriedly
Perhaps their gait, the shade/length/cut/wave of hair, build
or some thing combined suggests some one to me
I wonder, but they don't glance back, no apology prospect
I wonder if that's partly why they're moving away so swiftly
Poised
in oils, 20 x 16 inches
The crowd melees round,
Separating my focus and child while relentlessly urging me towards an (un)known direction
New senses - Alarm.
Wreathing unnoticed against the con fusion of pop u lace
bound irrevocably by it's interwoven indiscriminate disregard
This binding blind carriage denies me recourse.
Hooked by the horde and driven through the brilliant glazed halls of sales,
No glimpse of that I sought caught,
Brought to an entruance by a group persuaded to leave the current of movement by the savoury aromas emitted.
The Menu in oils, 16 x 20 inches
I looked around purposefully - no evidence of my child in sight, but another exit potential to recover and reunite
Scanning the obstacle pockets of chairs and tables, about which people with food trays navigate unhurriedly and others enjoy meals noisily.
Alternate route and speedier remedy calculated the juxtaposition of the food counter / service area where orderly customers queued quietly
As I commenced upon this path, again I paused, having noticed somebody.
If I continued, I would pass in too close a proximity, past someone now quite alien to me.
Scarcely faltering I renegotiated, with increasing vigour, my way out.
Avoiding trays tipping, foot tripping, chairs left in discriminate disarray and the unwanted attention or notice of those passed.
Exhaling, at last, as I stepped out into (I sensed) a more open space.
Double glazed, 'chrome effect' painted, utility doors immediately to my left announced "Exit" with a rewarding view of the without doors that beyond them lay. Fresh air wafted through, sucked in along with new regurgitating arrivals.
A counter stream of jostling shoppers force me to wait momentarily, amongst them, I see, my unperturbed and treasured step into view.
Together we leave the building, as I hurriedly describe my closed encounter.
I urge towards the perimeter, attempting to guide past a welcoming restaurant - unsuccessfully.
Talked inside by a laconic admission laden with expectancy despite my fervent desire to quit the area a.s.a.p.
With little restraint I chivvy this single plate meal along.
As we depart, the warm flood of light spills out forming an arc to the foot step
Beyond creeps the pervasive gloom through which we accelerate.
At last we reach the boundary gate,
Street lights flickering into life break the developing darkness with solitary circled beams along the unkempt and deserted road, increasing the shadowed menace of the looming tower blocks which seem to unfold.
Somewhere in the desolate depths a dim distant gleam sputters the outline of the stairwell within and mutters opposite.
I don't remember crossing the street, but I'm glad I'm not alone as I stand in curious trepidation at the foot of the stairs exchanging questioning glances, "Was that a moan?".
Senses sharpening in the eerie enveloping breath filled darkness
Approaching the top of the flight I see, discernible by intensity, door-less rooms across the hallway
To my right the light sputters more brightly within the room, wherein stands a woman - outline illuminated, framed between the candle on the table beside her and the window she stands looking out at
She turns, unconcerned, with a smile that doesn't reach her eyes
Her hands hold out some object that crosses the distance between them
She walks towards the hallway, strange high steps,
A glow from the room across from the stairs distracts me
There's a bed, or some kind of sheeted platform, upon which is propped a square of canvas loosely stretched between four small (inch narrow) rough branches
Emitting an incandescent glow
Burning umber appears across the canvas
I gape in wonder as contorting facial contours materialise,
The effigy has motion
There's a cadenced background rustling rumble
But does it make sense?
High Steps
in oils, 20 x 16 inches
Maybe not but, if a burning self materialising effigy said something that sounded a lot like, "Train", "spot diggers", and possibly "Track", you'd probably wonder what they meant by that too.
..... but it's not (and it can't be) exclusively used, by any means.
In a courtroom (for example) a Judge and Jury will rely on their understanding and appreciation of various forms of 'evidence'.
What's proposed for this purpose relies on the ability of each to withstand or overcome specific principles, criteria and argument whilst retaining and/or gaining support as such.
Paul/45 [22:17]: I'm Paul/45 ...can u chat??
Chloe Sencounter [22:17]: Hello Paul/45, Yes I can chat
Paul/45 [22:17]: Whats ur name them ....Chloe I guess??!!
Chloe Sencounter [22:18]: Yes, well .... at least, it's easier to type Chloe and I'm okay with being called that
Paul/45 [22:18]: so not your real name then??!!! ..lol - no worries
Paul/45 [22:19]: how old are u then if u don'tme asking???
Chloe Sencounter [22:19]: No, it's not my real name but a lot of people find Barbara difficult to navigate on a keyboard
Chloe Sencounter [22:19]: I'm 48
Paul/45 [22:19]: ..mind - I meant!!!
Paul/45 [22:19]: .....cool ...I work as a solar electrical engineer ...travel a lot ...what do you do?
Chloe Sencounter [22:20]: I'm an independent artist, I paint with oils
Paul/45 [22:21]: thats nice ..my mum is an artist ...she went to the Slade and does oil painting too
Chloe Sencounter [22:21]: Nice
Paul/45 [22:21]: where are u based then?
Chloe Sencounter [22:22]: I live in Stafford
Paul/45 [22:23]: near Nottingham.....not a bad place.....have u always lived there?
Chloe Sencounter [22:23]: No, previously lived in South Wales for 7 years although I'm from Merseyside originally
Paul/45 [22:24]: Are you a Liverpool fan then??
Chloe Sencounter [22:24]: Yes, although I'm guessing you're referring to the football team, in which case - if forced to watch one team of my choice I would choose LFC
Paul/45 [22:25]: ok.....so what are ur other interests...I enjoy travelling, music , reading , squash , meeting people
Chloe Sencounter [22:26]: Are you searching for someone to meet by making conversations online? If so.... I'm not interested in that at all
Paul/45 [22:26]: just chatting ...what are you interested in??
Chloe Sencounter [22:28]: I'm interested in paralinguistics, ancient and contemporary symbolic reference and inference, structures of civilisation especially of antiquity, philosophy, psychology, parapsychology, stuff like that
Paul/45 [22:28]: God Barbara!!! .....you must be one interesting person
Chloe Sencounter [22:29]: LOL
Chloe Sencounter [22:29]: Usually a small list like that generates total disinterest
Paul/45 [22:29]: How the hell did you get into all that !!! lol
Chloe Sencounter [22:29]: Now that's a long and a short story
Chloe Sencounter [22:30]: I've always been fascinated by ancient cultural beliefs and their origins
Chloe Sencounter [22:30]: more recently I've discovered I've a long standing strategically developed abilities that involve utilisation of paralinguistics
Chloe Sencounter [22:31]: What's always seemed quite normal to me I've only just learned recently actually isn't considered normal at all effectively
Paul/45 [22:32]: I'm not joking Barbara ...I've never met anyone like you!!....you must be one interesting person to talk to
Chloe Sencounter [22:32]: Because this utilisation is essentially on a subliminal level for most people, I've had to develop various masking techniques in addition
Paul/45 [22:32]: Did you go to Cambridge or Oxford??!!!
Chloe Sencounter [22:33]: I'm still kind of unearthing these techniques because I've only just found out that I am one of a very small minority who is actually aware that they use them (if that makes any sense)
Chloe Sencounter [22:33]: No, lol... though that has been suggested
Paul/45 [22:35]: so do u believe in God??
Chloe Sencounter [22:35]: Interesting question, Yes I do
Paul/45 [22:37]: Oh good......if I had a chance to meet you ...would take it!!!.
Chloe Sencounter [22:37]: Why did you ask me that question?
Paul/45 [22:38]: Because I believe in God .....and I would be interested in how you link your theories with His existence
Chloe Sencounter [22:39]: I like that you capitalised but I'm not sure of the gender (as such) myself
Paul/45 [22:39]: now you are really going to get me thinking !!
Chloe Sencounter [22:39]: Have you ever tried looking for your nose without the use of a mirror?
Paul/45 [22:40]: No!!!
Chloe Sencounter [22:40]: Well, I think that current understanding and acknowledgements relating to God are a lot like that
Chloe Sencounter [22:41]: However, I think the first principle is either being overlooked or simply dismissed
Chloe Sencounter [22:41]: If we were to consider it simply in terms of evolution
Chloe Sencounter [22:41]: Which science basically is built upon (in the terms that we consider reputable) in today's society
Chloe Sencounter [22:42]: One thing that has held true as a fundamental and integral aspect of human evolution is some absolute belief in something Other, Greater, Creative, Initial
Chloe Sencounter [22:42]: We know that in various terms, specifically God
Chloe Sencounter [22:43]: No amount of evolution has eradicated this concept from our genetic development
Chloe Sencounter [22:43]: Now, inherent to evolution are a few basic principles
Chloe Sencounter [22:44]: The most fundamental of which is that we keep what's important or beneficial
Chloe Sencounter [22:44]: Discarding what's obsolete or simply useless in the process
Chloe Sencounter [22:45]: This you might think would mean that as a species we're now developing into something that has a rational explanation to reasonably dismiss the whole concept
Chloe Sencounter [22:45]: But there's something in our genetic inheritance that is at odds with this and is unlikely to change significantly over a great number of future generations
Chloe Sencounter [22:45]: The place where we have our appreciation of anything of that nature
Chloe Sencounter [22:46]: In simple terms, (according to modern scientific description, definition and within all rules of methodology)
Paul/45 [22:46]: Barbara ..I am following you ...very interesting
Chloe Sencounter [22:47]: We're hard wired to believe in God
Chloe Sencounter [22:47]: It's an absolute and fundamental integral aspect of our species
Chloe Sencounter [22:47]: Now....
Chloe Sencounter [22:47]: putting that to one side (briefly)
Chloe Sencounter [22:48]: Evolution does not keep things which are frivolous, unnecessary or potentially damaging
Chloe Sencounter [22:48]: Survival is a key element of evolution by description
Chloe Sencounter [22:49]: Although we're a relatively new species in comparative terms to any other groups that have been here ... such as birds
Chloe Sencounter [22:49]: We're also benefitting from their evolutionary development
Chloe Sencounter [22:50]: There's no other species we're in direct competition with and I can't see that changing anytime soon .. at least not within the realms of our planet
Chloe Sencounter [22:51]: Every aspect of any species we're aware of can be explained in scientific terms and appreciation in evolutionary definition
Chloe Sencounter [22:51]: Apart from our need to believe in God
Chloe Sencounter [22:51]: Unless
Chloe Sencounter [22:51]: There's a Very Good Reason
Chloe Sencounter [22:52]: We could consider the arguments for and against
Chloe Sencounter [22:52]: But if we apply the logic we congratulate ourselves with for attaining
Chloe Sencounter [22:52]: The simplest and most logical answer to it is, there is a God
Chloe Sencounter [22:53]: The alternative is finding another and very complicated explanation that doesn't in any way suggest by implication the existance of a God or other hugely influential entity
Paul/45 [22:53]: I've just copied your thoughts on to a word document....will save it and think things over
Chloe Sencounter [22:53]: Okay
Chloe Sencounter [22:53]: lol
Paul/45 [22:54]: you are very deep....extremely intelligent
Considering alchemy and other co vert explanations
καλήεἶδος
(K a l e i d o s c o p e)
In oils, 20 x 16 inches
In order to portray a combining 5th traditional elemental 'concept' realisation of Aether/Void - I considered the basic composition of colour, as we understand it (black and white specifically), based on refraction implications in relation to mass and logical value principles. Intentionally amalgamating these by utilising the contemporary framework of scientific knowledge, practice and accepted theory to achieve a positive negative myriad blend by incorporating within established, archaic and multi-faceted historical inference to produce one classic(al) cohesive and personal definitive perspective.
here's a consensus or over-riding perspective (it seems to me)
